Ramesh Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petition challenging a demand of sub-division charges by Agra Development Authority on a single plot, relying on an Apex Court judgment holding such levies unlawful. Counsel heard; instructions sought from authority; matter put up as fresh.
What the court decided
Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29276 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramesh Agarwal Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yash Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the first relief forthwith.
- Heard Shri Yash Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri F.A. Ansari, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Shri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for Agra Development Authority.
- The instant writ petition is preferred seeking quashing of letter dated 29.02.2024 issued by the respondents and mandamus commanding the respondents to return the sub-division charges paid by the petitioner.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-authority in most arbitrary manner had asked the sub-division charges contained in U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. He submits that in the instant matter the demand notice bearing challan no.CH/ADA/BP/22-23/8820 and file no.ADA/BP/21-22/1404, which was issued on 18.05.2024 demanding Rs.15,11,185/- as sub-division charges despite the legal precedent that the said charges imposed on a single plot more than once.
- In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement and order dated 28.04.2023 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5645 of 2015 (Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and another Vs. Rajesh Sharma and others) wherein it has been held that under Section 41 of the Act, 1973 the State could not have issued orders permitting/allowing the Development Authorities to levy the charges/fees other than those provided under Section 15 (2-A) of the Act, 1973. He also states that the aforesaid judgement was pronounced on 28.04.2023 and the impugned demand was raised on 18.05.2024, which is of later date, accordingly, direction may be issued to the authority to return the said amount along with interest.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sub-division charges demanded from the petitioner beyond those permitted under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973 are lawful and must be refunded?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Ramesh Agarwal
- respondent
State Of Uttar Pradesh
- respondent
Agra Development Authority
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIC/29276/2024
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page · Mahesh Chandra Tripathi Prashant Kumar
- Order 2 · Mahesh Chandra Tripathi Prashant Kumar
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court